It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Church of Christ Shooting: 2 Dead, 1 Critical In White Settlement, Texas

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Depends how you define a mass shooting, of course. Seems like California leads the way by a good margin.




posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBlaq


Your response simply indicates you fail to understand
Christ teachings concerning retaliation.

Self-defense is the anti-thesis of self-denial, which is
the very premise of Christ teachings.

I believe it is you who fails to understand Christ's teachings.

Your premise that Christians are to do nothing to defend themselves is equivalent to suicide. All of Jesus' followers have a purpose to accomplish on this earth, and they cannot accomplish that if they are dead. Every person, including Christians, seeks to defend their life and health... we run away from danger, we hide from oppression, we avoid persecution. Nowhere does Jesus preach against that. He does accept God's will in the Garden of Gethsemane, rebuking Peter for attacking a soldier with his sword, but that was because Jesus' role at that time was to be a sacrifice. It wasn't the protecting of Jesus that caused the rebuke; it was interference with God's will.

Now, the ignorant will state that how do we know it wasn't God's will that the shooter's next target died? How do we know that it wasn't God's wish that the shooter continue? The answer is simple: God's wish is that no one should die. The moment one states that God's wish is for someone to die, that person has demonstrated a severe misunderstanding of the entire meaning of the Bible.

So I then ask: how does a Christian know it is not God's wish that they step out in front of a speeding truck? They know because it is never... never God's wish that someone die. It was not God's wish that the shooter died... that was the result of the shooter himself opposing God's wish, likely due to a lack of faith. And had it, by some stretch of the imagination, been God's determined will that the shooter live, that bullet would have missed... the man who shot him would have jerked his hand at the last moment, or the gun would have misfired, or the man would have survived with a hole in the head even. God is not mocked. His will shall be done; our only choice is whether we will participate in it.

Now, if I make an attempt to shoot an innocent individual, then I am going against God's wishes. If I shoot a person who is attempting to shoot me, well, that's a different story. It is not God's wish that the shooter die, but it is also not God's wish that I die. No matter the outcome, God's wishes have been opposed, not my me... I didn't choose the altercation... but by the aggressor.

That is why God tells us to flee where possible. God doesn't want anyone to die. It is better to flee and not kill the aggressor than to stand and kill him, but that is not always a choice.

TheRedneck



edit on 12/30/2019 by TheRedneck because: clarification between God's will and God's wishes



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBlaq

Maybe because no one here is saying you *must* actively seek to defend yourself? If you want to allow someone to kill you because that is what you believe you must do, then you are more than welcome to.

Additionally, in certain times and in certain places, people were prevented from their own defense by the law. In case you missed it, that is a hot topic of debate in this country - whether or not the private citizen has the right to own and use the means of defense on his or her own behalf or must wait for the "proper" authority to do it for them. You may as well be asking why the Jews did not defend themselves against the Nazis, the Armenians against the Turks, or the Tutsis against the Hutus.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Re: www.politifact.com...

Do Most people believe

FOUR victims must be injured?

or

FOUR victims must be killed?



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

How would I know what most people think?



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I wonder how many people don't consider that the shooter is being tallied as a victim. Granted, technically he is, but he's in a slightly different category I think. Without him, there wouldn't be any victims to begin with.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
a reply to: carewemust

Evil’s frag rate is higher in the “tough gun laws” states.

Evil tends to get taken out quickly or avoids, in the conceal/carry states.


That makes sense. Mass shooters prefer states where there are the most unarmed people. I've never seen a statistic citing where most mass shooting occur.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: carewemust

How would I know what most people think?


Because you said, "Seems like California....", which means you know more than I do on the subject. I have NO CLUE which states lead the way in mass shootings.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

This article: www.politifact.com... says four or more victims. I don't think that includes the shooter(s).



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Why do you think I keep bringing up the Sutherland shooting? This guy more or less tried to recreate it.

Everything that happened went down in less then 5 seconds, 3 at most judging by the video. Yes, he took down two in that time, but he got nailed extra quickly in the process and there were around six people reaching for their guns or who got their guns out in that time frame.

Was it ideal? No because people still died, but it was much better than the alternative where he shot as many as he wanted while people cowered and waited for the cops.

If you can drop two in less than 5 seconds, how many can you get in the minutes it would take for the cops to show up? And remember, Sutherland was still stopped by a private citizen and his firearm, not the cops.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Only two dead, possibly including the shooter.

pjmedia.com...


edit on 30-12-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

It means I googled what state has had the most mass shootings and linked to the article that came up. There is no one definition of a mass shooting, and I have no idea what “most people” think.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: CthruU

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Well its been two weeks right?

abcnews.go.com...

Roughly every fifteen days now.

But this American carnage ends right here and ends right now..... sure it does.


I'm assuming you are for getting rid of all those nasty gun thingeys and then everything will be fine.

Then every Christian, then every Jew...

You know, those religious radicals.

Then a little bit of a purge (For America!!!) to get rid of those who don't think like the left...

Then those that are left will just settle in comfortably and just be proud to be part of the 4th Reich.

/facepalm

To the OP, sad that there are crazies out there.

Too bad there are gun-free zones where this can happen.



Christians don't kill people, but guns do (once more).


A gun is an inanimate object.

So no, guns don't kill people.

Hard to get into a serious conversation with someone who can't comprehend that.

Christians kill people all the time, actually... although the motive is generally not their religion.



Exactly, and hows the irony - the purp was shot and killed by the parishioner in his church.

Thoust shall not kill. Clear to see that parishioner takes his religion seriously.


Was not a parishioner, was armed security, there were armed parishioners..I imagine one of them would of gotten the shooter eventually



Wilson was identified as one of the two church members who, within six seconds, helped take down the shooter during Sunday service.

Yep, my bad!



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Over the past 10 years, have more mass shootings occurred in states where it's easy to get guns or where it's hard to get guns?

I can't imagine there is any difference. Because it is not hard to get a gun period..if one really wants one.



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Just read some folks are actually blaming the law that allowed those 6 or 7 people to be armed in the church for the shooting... not that it allowed them to defend the people in the church, but it allowed the shooter to come and shoot people.


Its moments like this I honestly ponder if a plague or zombie apocalypse would be a bad thing...



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I know. It reads like people are disappointed that the guy didn’t kill more and are actually attacking the guy who shot the killer!



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: carewemust
Over the past 10 years, have more mass shootings occurred in states where it's easy to get guns or where it's hard to get guns?

I can't imagine there is any difference. Because it is not hard to get a gun period..if one really wants one.

Nor should it be



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: carewemust
Over the past 10 years, have more mass shootings occurred in states where it's easy to get guns or where it's hard to get guns?

I can't imagine there is any difference. Because it is not hard to get a gun period..if one really wants one.

Nor should it be

Thats your opinion, I think some people shouldn't have them. The shooter is a poster boy for who shouldn't have one(go ahead and argue he should)..but how could you stop him.

Anyway, carry on, these shooting are the price you pay.
edit on 30-12-2019 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod


The shooter is a poster boy for who shouldn't have one(go ahead and argue he should)..but how could you stop him.

That's the whole point. There is no way to prevent someone hell bent on getting a firearm from getting a firearm. It simply cannot be done. We can make it harder to get a firearm, we can pass all the laws in the world, but if a person wants a firearm badly enough, they can get one.

So since there is no way to actually remove firearms from society, the next most logical alternative is to limit the damage they can do. One does that by making sure that anyone who decides to harm another with a firearm is stopped as quickly as possible to minimize damage. The best way to do that is to allow others to carry a firearm, since it is pointless to throw sticks at someone packing heat. It's called a balance of power, and while it may not be theoretically optimal, it is the most optimal solution given the realities of life.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

There is absolutely no way, zero percent chance, of eliminating danger from life. Just taking your next breath involves inherent risks. Getting out of bed, walking out your front door, crossing the street, etc. ad infinitum. Everybody who's ever lived, has or will die.

That said, thoughts out to all involved. Tragic this happened at all, even worse that people lost their lives because of it. Even good guys with guns cannot hope to save everybody, but thank whoever they were there to put a stop to it before it got worse.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join